DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Score

DIBELS is a registered trademark of Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. http://dibels.org/ 1
DIBELS® Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Score © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / September 12, 2016
The DIBELS Next assessment provides two types of scores at each benchmark assessment period: a) a raw score for each individual measure and b) a composite score (the DIBELS Composite Score or DCS). Each of the scores is interpreted relative to benchmark goals and cut points for risk to determine if a student’s score is at or above the benchmark, below the benchmark, or below the cut point for risk (well below the benchmark).
Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk DIBELS benchmark goals are empirically derived, criterion-referenced target scores that represent adequate reading skill for a particular grade and time of year. Benchmark goals and cut points for risk are provided for the DIBELS Composite Score as well as for individual DIBELS measures. Benchmark goals are based on research that examined the predictive probability of a score on a measure at a particular point in time, compared to later DIBELS measures and external measures of reading proficiency and achievement. (Additional information about the benchmark goals research is included in the DIBELS Next Technical Manual, available from http://dibels.org/.)
A benchmark goal indicates a level of skill at which students are likely to achieve the next DIBELS benchmark goal or reading outcome. Thus, for students who achieve a benchmark goal, the odds are in their favor of achieving later reading outcomes if they receive effective core reading instruction.
Conversely, the cut points for risk indicate a level of skill below which students are unlikely to achieve subsequent reading goals without receiving additional, targeted instructional support. For students who have scores below the cut point for risk, the probability of achieving later reading goals is low unless intensive support is provided.
DIBELS Next benchmark goals and cut points for risk provide three primary benchmark status levels that describe students’ performance: a) At or Above Benchmark, b) Below Benchmark, and c) Well Below Benchmark. These levels are based on the overall likelihood of achieving specified goals on subsequent DIBELS Next assessments or external measures of reading achievement.
At or Above Benchmark. For students who score at or above the benchmark goal, the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent reading goals is approximately 80% to 90%. These students are likely to need effective core instruction to meet subsequent early literacy and/or reading goals. Within this range, the likelihood of achieving subsequent goals is lower for students whose scores are right at the benchmark goal and increases as scores increase above the benchmark (see Table 1).
To assist in setting ambitious goals for students, the At or Above Benchmark level is subdivided into At Benchmark and Above Benchmark levels.
At Benchmark. In the At Benchmark range, the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early literacy or reading goals is 70% to 85%. Some of these students, especially those with scores near the benchmark, may require monitoring and/or strategic support on specific component skills.
Above Benchmark. In the Above Benchmark range, the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early literacy and/or reading goals is 90% to 99%. While all students with scores in this range will likely benefit from core support, some students with scores in this range may benefit from instruction on more advanced skills.
Below Benchmark. Between the benchmark goal and cut point for risk is a range of scores where students’ future performance is more difficult to predict. For students with scores in this range, the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early literacy/reading goals is approximately 40% to 60%. These students are likely to need strategic support to ensure their achievement of future goals. Strategic support generally consists of carefully targeted supplemental support in specific skill areas in which students are having difficulty. To ensure that the greatest number of students achieve later reading success, it is best for students with scores in this range to be monitored regularly to ensure that they are making adequate progress and to receive increased or modified support if necessary to achieve subsequent reading goals.
Well Below Benchmark. For students who score below the cut point for risk, the overall likelihood of achieving subsequent early literacy/reading goals is low, approximately 10% to 20%. These students are identified as likely to need intensive support. Intensive support refers to interventions that incorporate something more or something different from the core curriculum or supplemental support.
Intensive support might entail:
• providing more instructional time or more practice,
• presenting smaller skill steps in the instructional hierarchy,
• providing more explicit modeling and instruction, and/or
• providing greater scaffolding and practice.
Because students who need intensive support are likely to have individual needs, we recommend that their progress be monitored frequently and their intervention modified dynamically to ensure adequate progress.
Table 1 summarizes the design specifications for achieving later reading outcomes and provides descriptions for the likely need for support for each of the benchmark status levels. It is important to note that while there is an overall likelihood for each benchmark status level, within each level the likelihood of achieving later reading outcomes increases as students’ scores increase. This is illustrated in the first column of Table 1.
3
DIBELS Composite Score The DIBELS Composite Score is a combination of multiple DIBELS scores and provides the best overall estimate of students’ early literacy skills and/or reading proficiency. Most data management services will calculate the DIBELS Composite Score for you, provided that all required measures necessary for calculating the composite score have been administered. To calculate the DIBELS Composite Score yourself, see the DIBELS Next Composite Score Worksheets at the end of this document.
Benchmark goals and cut points for risk for the DIBELS Composite Score are based on the same logic and procedures as the benchmark goals for the individual DIBELS measures. However, because the DIBELS Composite Score provides the best overall estimate of a student’s skills, the DIBELS Composite Score should generally be interpreted first. If a student is at or above the benchmark goal on the DIBELS Composite Score, the odds are in the student’s favor of reaching later important reading outcomes. Some students who score at or above the DIBELS Composite Score benchmark goal may still need additional support in one of the basic early literacy skills, as indicated by a below benchmark score on an individual DIBELS Next measure (FSF, PSF, NWF, DORF, or Daze). This potential need for additional support is especially true for a student whose composite score is close to the benchmark goal.
The DIBELS Next measures that are used to calculate the DIBELS Composite Score vary by grade and time of year. As such, the composite score is not comparable across different grades and does not provide a direct measure of growth across grades. For grades K through 2, the composite score is also not comparable across different times of year and should not be used as an indicator of growth within a grade. However, because the logic and procedures used to establish benchmark goals are consistent across grades and times of year, the percent of students at different benchmark status levels can be compared, even though the mean scores are not comparable.
Benchmark Goals Study The DIBELS Next benchmark goals, cut points for risk, and Composite Score were developed based upon data collected in a study conducted during the 2009–2010 school year. The goals represent a series of conditional probabilities of meeting later important reading outcomes. The external criterion was the Group Reading and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE; Williams, 2001). The 40th percentile on the GRADE assessment was used as an indicator that the students had adequate early reading and/or reading skills for their grade. Data for the study were collected in thirteen elementary and middle schools in five states. Data collection included administering the DIBELS Next measures to participating students in grades K–6 in addition to the GRADE. Participants in the study were 3,816 students across grades K–6 from general education classrooms who were receiving English language reading instruction, including students with disabilities and students who were English language learners, provided they had the response capabilities to participate. The study included both students who were struggling in reading and those who were typically achieving. A subset of the total sample participated in the GRADE assessment (n = 1,306 across grades K–6). Additional information about the study is included in the DIBELS Next Technical Manual, available from http://dibels.org/.
Frequently Asked Questions About DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals
1. Why doesn’t Letter Naming Fluency have benchmark goals?
Answer: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF) is included in DIBELS Next as an indicator of risk, rather than an instructional target. The ability to recognize and name letters in preschool and at the beginning of kindergarten is a strong predictor of later reading achievement (e.g., National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Schatschneider, Francis, Carlson, Fletcher, & Foorman, 2004; Walsh, Price, & Gillingham, 1988). However, little is known about the function of letter name knowledge in learning to read. While there is some support that letter name knowledge paired with phonemic awareness training may facilitate learning letter sound correspondences for preschool and kindergarten children (Kim, Foorman, Petscher, & Zhou, 2010; Piasta & Wagner, 2010), it is also clear that simply teaching letter names to students who also have poor phonemic awareness skills does little to help in the acquisition of reading. In fact, studies have demonstrated that successful learning of letter- sound correspondences that leads to reading acquisition can occur without knowledge of letter names (Bruck, Genesee, & Caravolas, 1997; Mann & Wimmer, 2002). Because learning letter names is not a powerful instructional target for elementary school-age students, especially for those beyond kindergarten who are struggling to learn to read, benchmark goals are not provided for LNF. LNF is a strong predictor of later reading, however, so it is included as a part of the DIBELS Composite Score in kindergarten and early first grade.
2. Why are the sixth-grade benchmark goals lower than the fifth-grade goals?
Answer: The difficulty level of the passages used for DORF and Daze changes by grade, so composite scores and benchmark goals can’t be directly compared across grades. The difficulty level of the passages increases by grade in a roughly linear fashion. However, student performance increases in a curve, with the most growth occurring in the earlier grades, and slower growth in the upper grades. Between fifth and sixth grade, the difficulty level of the materials increases at a faster rate than student performance, so benchmark goals are lower in sixth grade than in fifth.
3. My school uses benchmark goals that are different from the official DIBELS Next benchmark goals. What goals do you recommend?
Answer: We recommend using the official DIBELS Next benchmark goals, which have been developed to meet the design specifications based on predictive probabilities outlined in this paper and are based on research conducted by the authors of DIBELS Next. We do not support non-official goals that may be based on a different rationale, educational decision model, and/or research. The official benchmark goals support the use of DIBELS for the purposes for which the assessment was designed: a) for identifying which students are likely to be on track and which students are likely to need additional instructional support to become successful readers, b) enabling educators to set meaningful goals, and c) for monitoring the progress of students toward important reading outcomes.
The official DIBELS Next benchmark goals typically fall around the 39th percentile. This represents the lowest level of skill that puts the odds in a student’s favor of meeting subsequent reading goals. It is a level we want all students to reach, including our lowest performing students. This means that average-performing and high-performing students will score above or well above the benchmark goal.
Further information on the official benchmark goals and their interpretation is described in Chapter 3 of the DIBELS Next Assessment Manual (“Interpreting DIBELS Next Data”). For additional information about the design specifications and construction of the benchmark goals, please see Chapter 4 of the DIBELS Next Technical Manual, available from http://dibels.org/.
References
Bruck, M., Genesee, F., & Caravolas, M. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early literacy acquisition. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 145–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kim, Y., Foorman, B., Petscher, Y., & Zhou, C. (2010). The contributions of phonological awareness and letter-name knowledge to letter-sound acquisition —a cross-classified multilevel model approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 313–326.
Mann, V.A., & Wimmer, H. (2002). Phoneme awareness and pathways into literacy: A comparison of German and American children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 653–682.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Piasta, S.B., & Wagner, R.K. (2010). Learning letter names and sounds: Effects of instruction, letter type, and phonological processing skill. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105, 324–344.
Schatschneider, Francis, Carlson, Fletcher, & Foorman (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265–282.
Walsh, D.J., Price, G.G., & Gillingham, M.G. (1988). The critical but transitory importance of letter naming. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 108–122.
Williams, K.T. (2001). Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE). New York: Pearson.
7
Kindergarten Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Measure
Beginning of Year
Middle of Year
End of Year
Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 38 + 156 + 152 +
At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 26 - 37 122 - 155 119 - 151
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 13 - 25 85 - 121 89 - 118
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support 0 - 12 0 - 84 0 - 88
FSF Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 16 + 43 +
At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 10 - 15 30 - 42
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 5 - 9 20 - 29
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support 0 - 4 0 - 19
PSF Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 44 + 56 +
NWF-CLS Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 28 + 40 +
The benchmark goal is the number that is bold. The cut point for risk is the number that is italicized. a Some students may benefit from instruction on more advanced skills. bSome students may require monitoring and strategic support on component skills.
First Grade Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Measure
Beginning of Year
Middle of Year
End of Year
PSF Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 47 +
At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 40 - 46
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 25 - 39
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support 0 - 24
NWF-CLS Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 34 + 59 + 81 +
NWF-WWR Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 4 + 17 + 25 +
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 0 3 - 7 6 - 12
DORF Words Correct
Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 34 + 67 +
DORF Acuracy
Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 86% + 97% +
At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 78% - 85% 90% - 96%
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 68% - 77% 82% - 89%
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support 0% - 67% 0% - 81%
Retell Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 17 +
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support
Second Grade Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Measure
Beginning of Year
Middle of Year
End of Year
NWF-CLS Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 72 +
NWF-WWR Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 21 +
DORF Words Correct
DORF Acuracy
Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 96% + 99% + 99% +
At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 90% - 95% 96% - 98% 97% - 98%
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 81% - 89% 91% - 95% 93% - 96%
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support 0% - 80% 0% - 90% 0% - 92%
Retell Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 25 + 31 + 39 +
Retell Quality of Response
At or Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 2 + 2 +
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 1 1
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support
Third Grade Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Measure
Beginning of Year
Middle of Year
End of Year
DORF Words Correct
DORF Acuracy
At or Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 2 + 2 + 3 +
Below Benchmark Likely to Need Strategic Support 1 1 2
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support 1
Daze Adjusted
Fourth Grade Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Measure
Beginning of Year
Middle of Year
End of Year
DORF Words Correct
DORF Acuracy
Daze Adjusted
Fifth Grade Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Measure
Beginning of Year
Middle of Year
End of Year
DORF Words Correct
DORF Acuracy
Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 99% + 99% + 100%
At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 98% 98% 99%
Well Below Benchmark Likely to Need Intensive Support 1 1
Daze Adjusted
At Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supportb 18 - 20 20 24 - 27
Sixth Grade Benchmark Goals and Cut Points for Risk
DIBELS Measure
Beginning of Year
Middle of Year
End of Year
DORF Words Correct
DORF Acuracy
Above Benchmark Likely to Need Core Supporta 99% + 99% + 100%
Daze Adjusted
Kindergarten Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the DIBELS® Composite Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual DIBELS® Measures
DIBELS Measure
Benchmark Status
Benchmark on middle-of-year
beginning-of-year status
Benchmark on end-of-year
status
status
Above Benchmark 91% 67% 98% 77%
At Benchmark 70% 35% 85% 32%
Below Benchmark 54% 24% 56% 13%
Well Below Benchmark 32% 12% 18% 3%
FSF At or Above Benchmark 83% 57% 86% 52%
At Benchmark 69% 36% 80% 41%
PSF At or Above Benchmark – – 86% 52%
Above Benchmark – – 94% 66%
At Benchmark – – 79% 38%
Below Benchmark – – 53% 18%
NWF Correct Letter
Above Benchmark – – 96% 72%
At Benchmark – – 78% 31%
Below Benchmark – – 47% 11%
Well Below Benchmark – – 18% 4%
Note. This table shows the percent of students that are on track on the DIBELS® Composite Score at the middle and end of the year based on the student’s DIBELS® measure score at the beginning and middle of the year. N = 441,923 students who had DIBELS Next® data for the 2013–2014 school year. Data exported from mCLASS®, VPORT®, and DIBELSnet® data reporting service.
First Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the DIBELS® Composite Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual DIBELS® Measures
DIBELS Measure
Benchmark Status
status
status
At Benchmark 74% 44% 75% 20%
PSF At or Above Benchmark 77% 56% – –
Above Benchmark 79% 59% – –
At Benchmark 74% 52% – –
Below Benchmark 64% 43% – –
NWF Correct Letter
At Benchmark 68% 37% 67% 28%
NWF Whole Words Read
At Benchmark 66% 36% 63% 25%
Well Below Benchmark – – 17% 5%
DORF Words Correct
Above Benchmark 98% 83%
At Benchmark 74% 24%
Below Benchmark 35% 6%
DORF Accuracy
Above Benchmark 97% 80%
At Benchmark 74% 27%
Well Below Benchmark 9% 2%
Second Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the DIBELS® Composite Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual DIBELS® Measures
DIBELS Measure
Benchmark Status
status
status
At Benchmark 85% 36% 77% 28%
NWF Correct Letter
NWF Whole Words Read
DORF Words Correct
At Benchmark 90% 42% 85% 40%
DORF Accuracy
At Benchmark 82% 37% 81% 44%
Retell At or Above Benchmark 89% 63% 84% 60%
At Benchmark 80% 41% 71% 37%
Third Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the DIBELS® Composite Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual DIBELS® Measures
DIBELS Measure
Benchmark Status
status
status
At Benchmark 76% 29% 83% 29%
DORF Words Correct
At Benchmark 79% 35% 83% 36%
DORF Accuracy
At Benchmark 78% 42% 76% 39%
At Benchmark 65% 32% 69% 34%
DAZE Adjusted
At Benchmark 78% 43% 80% 44%
Fourth Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the DIBELS® Composite Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual DIBELS® Measures
DIBELS Measure
Benchmark Status
status
status
At Benchmark 76% 32% 77% 29%
DORF Words Correct
At Benchmark 79% 41% 76% 33%
DORF Accuracy
At Benchmark 68% 39% 67% 35%
At Benchmark 63% 37% 66% 36%
DAZE Adjusted
At Benchmark 73% 39% 75% 41%
Fifth Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the DIBELS® Composite Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual DIBELS® Measures
DIBELS Measure
Benchmark Status
status
status
At Benchmark 75% 41% 73% 32%
DORF Words Correct
At Benchmark 75% 46% 76% 42%
DORF Accuracy
At Benchmark 76% 57% 71% 48%
At Benchmark 60% 39% 59% 34%
DAZE Adjusted
At Benchmark 67% 41% 77% 48%
Sixth Grade Percentage of Students Who Meet Later Outcomes on the DIBELS® Composite Score Based On Benchmark Status on Individual DIBELS® Measures
DIBELS Measure
Benchmark Status
status
status
At Benchmark 85% 20% 87% 21%
DORF Words Correct
At Benchmark 85% 26% 85% 27%
DORF Accuracy
At Benchmark 83% 45% 83% 43%
At Benchmark 75% 33% 76% 31%
DAZE Adjusted
At Benchmark 78% 24% 81% 27%
Percent of Students Who Met Outcomes on the GRADE
DIBELS Measure
End-of-Year Benchmark Status
Likelihood of Being on Track on the GRADE by Grade Level
K 1 2 3 4 5 6
DIBELS Composite
Score
At or Above Benchmark 74% 90% 89% 90% 84% 87% 93%
Below Benchmark 50% 48% 45% 48% 58% 45% 45%
Well Below Benchmark 36% 10% 14% 7% 3% 7% 13%
FSF At or Above Benchmark 70%
Below Benchmark 56%
NWF Correct Letter
Below Benchmark 42%
Below Benchmark 36%
At or Above Benchmark 87% 89% 89% 85% 83% 90%
Below Benchmark 62% 43% 50% 59% 57% 64%
Well Below Benchmark 14% 18% 3% 11% 25%
DORF Acuracy
Below Benchmark 39% 38% 54% 55% 69%
Retell At or Above Benchmark 86% 86% 83% 86% 90%
Daze Adjusted
Note. This table shows the likelihood of being on track on the GRADE assessment administered at the end of the year, based on the student’s individual end-of-year DIBELS measure benchmark status. The 40th percentile for the GRADE assessment was used to indicate whether the student was on track.
The DIBELS Composite Score is used to interpret student results for DIBELS Next. Most data management services will calculate the
composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not calculate it, you
can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.
Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________
DIBELS Composite Score (add values 1–2) =
Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.
Middle of Year Benchmark
End of Year Benchmark
KKindergarten DIBELS® Next Composite Score Worksheet © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 31, 2010
Middle of Year DORF Accuracy
Percent Accuracy
Value 0% – 49% 0 50% – 52% 2 53% – 55% 8 56% – 58% 14 59% – 61% 20 62% – 64% 26 65% – 67% 32 68% – 70% 38 71% – 73% 44 74% – 76% 50 77% – 79% 56 80% – 82% 62 83% – 85% 68 86% – 88% 74 89% – 91% 80 92% – 94% 86 95% – 97% 92 98% – 100% 98
End of Year DORF Accuracy
Percent Accuracy
Value 0% – 64% 0 65% – 66% 3 67% – 68% 9 69% – 70% 15 71% – 72% 21 73% – 74% 27 75% – 76% 33 77% – 78% 39 79% – 80% 45 81% – 82% 51 83% – 84% 57 85% – 86% 63 87% – 88% 69 89% – 90% 75 91% – 92% 81 93% – 94% 87 95% – 96% 93 97% – 98% 99 99% – 100% 105
Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________
DORF Accuracy Percent: _________ % 100 x (Words Correct / (Words Correct + Errors))
Accuracy Value from Table = ___________________ [4]
End of Year Benchmark
DORF Words Correct = ___________________ [2]
Beginning of Year Benchmark LNF Score = ___________________ [1]
PSF Score = ___________________ [2]
1First Grade DIBELS® Next Composite Score Worksheet © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 31, 2010
Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
If DORF is below 40 and Retell is not administered, use 0 for the Retell value only for calculating the DIBELS Composite Score. Do not calculate the composite score if any of the values are missing.
Middle of Year Benchmark DORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Beginning of Year Benchmark
DORF Words Correct = ___________________ [2]
2Second Grade DIBELS® Next Composite Score Worksheet © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 31, 2010
Beginning of Year DORF Accuracy
Percent Accuracy
Value 0% – 64% 0 65% – 66% 3 67% – 68% 9 69% – 70% 15 71% – 72% 21 73% – 74% 27 75% – 76% 33 77% – 78% 39 79% – 80% 45 81% – 82% 51 83% – 84% 57 85% – 86% 63 87% – 88% 69 89% – 90% 75 91% – 92% 81 93% – 94% 87 95% – 96% 93 97% – 98% 99 99% – 100% 105
Middle and End of Year
DORF Accuracy Percent
The DIBELS Composite Score is used to interpret student results for DIBELS Next. Most data management services will calculate the composite score for you. If you do not use a data management service or if your data management service does not calculate it, you can use this worksheet to calculate the composite score.
Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Daze Adjusted Score ___________ x 4 = ___________________ [3]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
End of Year Benchmark DORF Words Correct = ___________________ [1]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
3Third Grade DIBELS® Next Composite Score Worksheet © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 31, 2010
Beginning, Middle, and End of Year
Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
4Fourth Grade DIBELS® Next Composite Score Worksheet © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 31, 2010
Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
5Fifth Grade DIBELS® Next Composite Score Worksheet © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 31, 2010
Name: _____________________________________ Class: _____________________________________
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
Retell Score ___________ x 2 = ___________________ [2]
6Sixth Grade DIBELS® Next Composite Score Worksheet © Dynamic Measurement Group, Inc. / August 31, 2010

Documents

DIBELS Next Benchmark Goals and Composite Score